Last October, the News-Leader Editorial Board urged City Council to pass the stronger of two proposed bills that would expand the city's nondiscrimination law to include sexual orientation and gender identity.

More than two and a half years after the idea was first proposed, Springfield City Council voted 6-3 in favor of the ordinance. Council Bill 2014-189 went into effect immediately, adding protections in the case of housing, employment and public accommodations. It was the right thing to do then, and it's right for the city and its residents now.

That's why we urge the community to vote "no" to repealing that ordinance in the April 7 election.

Springfield was the 15th municipality in the state to add those protections, according to LGBT advocacy group PROMO. Protections were already in place against discrimination for race, creed, sex, handicap, age, national origin or ancestry.

In passing this bill — and keeping it — Springfield can be known as a community that stands together to protect its own: Our family, our friends, our neighbors, our co-workers.

We knew passage of the bill would come with a cost, and it did. A citizen petition sent the ordinance to public vote, and now it's up to all of us. The debate was strong last year, and it's boiled up again among the most vocal pushing for and against repeal.

We've heard the concerns and believe adding these protections won't create any more of an issue than experienced from the other protections, already in place.

Many churches — though certainly not all — support repeal of the ordinance, in spite of an amendment to the bill that includes a religious exemption to the employment clause.

Some business owners say they worry about being forced to hire an employee, but language in the ordinance clearly states it should not be interpreted to require any employer to " ... grant preferential treatment to any individual or to any group because of the age, race, creed, color, disability, religion, sex, national origin, or ancestry, sexual orientation or gender identity."

The debate about public bathrooms — and who can or should use which one — appears as much about unfounded fears, for which we have compassion, as fear-mongering, for which we don't. We've seen no evidence that other communities who passed similar ordinances had problems in the use of public bathrooms.

Some who support a repeal argue there is no concrete evidence of discrimination against residents because of sexual orientation or gender identity. But as one task force member pointed out, there wouldn't be — because until now, there was no law against it. However, the task force report includes anecdotal evidence of discrimination experienced by local residents.

Bottom line: No one should be denied fair housing, employment and public accommodations because of things like their skin color, their age, their disability — or because of their gender identity or sexual orientation.

One thing more: We again want to recognize the City Council members who made tough decisions and those on the task force who did the legwork studying this important issue. We also appreciate those on both sides of the debate who have made their support and opposition to the ordinance known in a civil way. Without healthy discussion, we can never move forward.

As we have said before — a strong community is built on a foundation of people who work together, giving of their time, wisdom and experience for the good of all of us.